96kHz 24 Bit Stereo Versions

[JKL2000]

If you have a BR (or DVD) with one of these (or something like it) do you listen to it much? How do they usually sound to you?

I have NO good audio setup right now aside from decent headphones, so I don't even know.

[Yaman Aksu]

Your ears probably can't hear above 12-15kHz (take this test if you want to know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxcbppCX6Rk ). That's the sound frequency, not the sampling frequency ---- the sampling frequency on the other hand (such as 44.1kHz or 96kHz you mention) needs to be at least twice as big as the sound frequency for the CD to be able to reproduce the sound frequency --- to account for a comfortable margin it needs to be even bigger than twice because twice is by theory whereas real-life electronic components don't work as precise as theory. So, unless I'm missing something, sampling rates such as 44.1kHz or 48kHz, instead of 96, will be just fine for humans at any age in terms of not missing frequencies the musician heard when writing/recording the stuff, but whether it will be good enough in other aspects I'm not so sure -- for example, there is a question of overall sound quality.

In terms of not missing frequencies, here's an example. Even when a keyboard player uses a non-sine wave (such a s square wave which is very common in synths) which therefore has additional frequency components at 3 and 5 and … times the fundamental frequency, if the fundamental frequency nears the human's ears' limit then those ears can't hear these particular additional frequency components (harmonics) anyway because they are too high to hear -- here's a youtube video on the square wave example, where he demonstrates that non-sine waves and sine waves start to sound the same as the frequency gets increased because at higher frequency levels the ear pretty much stops hearing the harmonics anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIuJTWS2uvY

BTW, I'm not saying "don't bother with 96kHz" --- I wouldn't (I'm very easy-going, I even listen to cassette tapes sometimes).

[klothos]

---- the sampling frequency on the other hand (such as 44.1kHz or 96kHz you mention) needs to be at least twice as big as the sound frequency for the CD to be able to reproduce the sound frequency --- to account for a comfortable margin it needs to be even bigger than twice because twice is by theory whereas real-life electronic components don't work as precise as theory. So, unless I'm missing something, sampling rates such as 44.1kHz or 48kHz, instead of 96, will be just fine for humans at any age in terms of not missing frequencies the musician heard when writing/recording the stuff, but whether it will be good enough in other aspects I'm not so sure -- for example, there is a question of overall sound quality.

Show me a human that can interpret the "holes" of a 44.1 kHz sample rate as a substandard earworm and I will show you a great teller of fiction.........

[AZProgger]

I use a Sony Blu-Ray player connected to a Yamaha 5.1 receiver. I listen to it a third of the time, as a third of my collection is hi-res. Hi-res audio sounds fatter and warmer to my ears, much the same way as analog sounds fatter and warmer than CD quality digital. There's also much more clarity when listening to Classical music. All instruments stand out more and sound crisper. Vinyl records especially sound thin and sterile when digitized in CD quality. Digitized in hi-res, they maintain their warmth.

I would compare it to an open reel tape moving at 7 1/2 inches per second, then bumping it up to 15. 7 1/2 sounds great, 15 just sounds better.

[Brian Griffin]

Show me a human that can interpret the "holes" of a 44.1 kHz sample rate as a substandard earworm and I will show you a great teller of fiction.........

Those of us in 40/50/60 something range surely notice how sight improves as we get older, why wouldn't our hearing also improve?

BG

[klothos]

Those of us in 40/50/60 something range surely notice how sight improves as we get older, why wouldn't our hearing also improve?

BG

Back in my signed-to-a-record-label-composing/performing-techno-industrial-music days, I know I prersonally A/B/Cd 44.1 kHz, 48kHz, and 96 kHz on a DAT machine and I couldnt discern a difference...


......but the main thing applies to CDs: Sample rates higher than 44.1kHz or any bit depths greater than 16 are universally converted down to 44.1/16 automatically: thats just how CDs are burnt. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 96kHz/16+ CD......

[klothos]

Coincidentally, I came across this article about thirty minutes ago:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[strawberrybrick]

Can I hear differences in various sources, CD, LP, bitrate, bit depth? Yes. Some are dramatic, some are very subtle.

HD/High Bit Rate audio sounds fantastic on my main system. Again, I attribute a lot of this to purpose-built compenents (DAC) and some very, very good speakers (PSB Synchrony).

The thing about hi-fidelity is that you can hear not only how good something was recorded/reproduced, but also how bad it was recorded/reproduced.

I'm digging the HD stuff.

[AZProgger]

Coincidentally, I came across this article about thirty minutes ago:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I just ran the "Intermod Tests" on my system. It passed with flying colors.